Hello David !
D.Emerson:
> Well maybe next message I'll change the subject to "network config"...
:-)
> Card Recognized! problems with debian packaging... isn't that why I decided
> on debian rather than Mandrake? It was because I was expecting the
> packaging to work better... hmph.
I did experience such things also. However, I'm quite sure that it wasn't
because of a weak package management but instead becuase of my own ignorance,
wrong reactions at critical points or very unfortunate circumstances.
It's not possible to foresee anything wickened happening in a system or
human, and for half of what one can imageine it's not possibe to write a
software - often, simply for limited resources.
DPKG is working on a igh level of safety, but still gives the user most
possibilities to customize and decide about things.
Where other distro's ( imho ) tend to make it easy and transparent, but more
'closed behind the doors' and rather influencable.
Debian requests you, and urges you to learn, and get your brain active ;-)
Usually nobody says it's the best distro for beginners
but i would say, if you first learn it this way, you've learned something
for life, with computers.
> The big problem I had here is that pcmcia-cs was not properly installed,
> but it THOUGHT it was properly installed. apt-get said it was properly
> installed
I guess there were some failure messages at the first install.
One has to get used to look carefully, and _read_, with debian....
( that apllies for me as well )
> So since it thought it was properly installed, I had to uninstall pcmcia-cs
> (and pcmcia-module-xx) and reinstall them both, and TADA! two high beeps,
> card properly identified and configured.
You see ? That's how it should be :-)
> Feb 11 02:22:09 lakshmi cardmgr[246]: + Ignoring unknown interface
> eth0=eth0.
nono...first do your reading !
( which means, I've got no idea ;)
> >Why testing ? I thought you're running stable woody ?
> >Please check your /etc/apt/sources.list. Maybe it's out of date.
> >My woody apt tells me 'pcmcia-modules-2.2.20' are compiled for
> > 'kernel-image 2.2.20-5'.
>
> Well, the kernel image 2.2.20-5 is stable, but the pcmcia-modules-2.2.20-5
> is testing, and there is another version of it that is marked unstable. But
> I had to upgrade the kernel from 2.2.20-1 which is what came on the CD,
> because I couldn't find a pcmcia-modules-2.2.20-1.
Now, look. Package versioning sometimes is confusing, i know ....
There's a kernel package version 2.2.20-5 for kernel image 2.2.20,
here in my 'stable' database;
and also a package pcmcia-modules 2.2.20 which in the description is said to
be compiled for kernel-package 2.2.20-5.
So it seems it's all here in woody.
However, I've got a set of cd's here, 4 weeks old. Maybe it has changed.
> yup, that sure was it!
yepp, and on to next stuff !
--
micha.